|Poster:||x-1||Date:||Oct 2, 2008 9:57pm|
Senator John McCain’s slogan of “country first” raises some interesting questions about the complexities of the individual’s relation to the state as a whole. This is because such a slogan, and the corresponding rhetoric, assumes a placement of the state need’s being met prior to that of the individual, despite the senator’s claim that putting “country first” is collectively beneficial. Words have implications in action, as the recently approved bailout package of seven hundred billion dollars, voted for by john McCain, clearly denotes.
It is not deniable that McCain is fulfilling his seemingly throwaway campaign quip. Why? Because, despite the notion that the beneficiaries of a country are comprised of those who fund it’s very existence, they are the one’s who ail the most. While those who actually comprise the abstract meaning of a country in its politicians and policies reside at the opposite end of the spectrum, and those who retain large amounts of wealth without contributing too much to the state coffers are able to drain them.
The nature of the relationship between government and market-generated wealth is not to suggest the influence of decisions made in smoky back rooms. Rather, it is a reflection of the reality that the architects of such a decision are directly involved, as evidenced by the former role of Treasury Secretary Paulson as the former CEO of the firm Goldman Sachs . As the Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson is fulfilling the needs of what he and many of his elite constitutes feel is necessitated by the country. Except that it is their country. At least as it exists within the duality of money and government, which have become interchangeable.
But it is not simply John McCain and like-minded representatives that are voting “country first”. John McCain opponent in the current presidential race, Senator Barack Obama, also voted in favor of the Wall Street Handout. If it is supposedly true that there are opposing desires and directions in either the Democrats or Republicans aims of putting “country first” they clearly have not been expressed in robbing it’s people. Even conventionally assuming that Senator Obama would have voted against the measure in at least a symbolic denunciation of his opponent’s choice.
The fact that both people contending for the same executive office are willing to act in an identical matter should be a good indication as to the idea as to the boundaries around people and politics. Most people would conceive of national interests as being the matter by which the populace is sustained. This is clearly not true with regards to the Republican or Democrat aristocracy. A fair and proper slogan to follow would be: “people first, and country never”.
P.S. If this needs to be moved or deleted it is alright.